INTERNATIONAL WATERS
EXPERIENCE NOTES

http://www.iwlearn.net/experience


2008-003
Updating a Transboundary Diagnostic
Analysis as Part of Adaptive
Management



Abstract: The GEF Black Sea Ecosystem Recovery Project (BSERP) supports regional aspects of the
GEF Strategic Partnership for Nutrient Reduction in the Danube/Black Sea Basin and it assists and
strengthens the role of the Black Sea Commission (of the Bucharest Convention for the Protection of the
Black Sea against Pollution). The BSERP ensures the provision of a suite of harmonised legal and policy
instruments for tackling the problems of eutrophication and the release of certain hazardous substances
in order to facilitate ecosystem recovery. The first Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis was finalised in
June 1996, and formed the basis of a comprehensive SAP. The original (1996) Black Sea TDA didn't
contain many of the items that a modern TDA should contain. It therefore became very clear than in
updating it, a new approach and structure was required. The document utilises GEF TDA-SAP good
practice in terms of its content, including causal chains, governance, socio-economic, stakeholders and
hot-spots analyses, together with the identification and examination of major transboundary problems.
This note offers a broad scope of analysis and lessons-learned on how to go about revising and updating
a TDA, a critical element of adaptive management. Key lessons cover investment and staff-time required,
scope and context, and methodologies on how to successfully implement the activity. Thus, this
experience offers practical advice to other projects seeking to update and revise TDAs, overcoming the
inevitable difficulties of doing so, to reflect changing environmental conditions.

Bill Parr
dr.bill.parr@btinternet.com
Black Sea Ecosystem Recovery Project
1

---

Updating a Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis as Part of Adaptive
Management

Experience of the GEF sponsored

"Black Sea Ecosystem Recovery Project (BSERP)"
(UNDP/GEF Project)
GEFID: 2263

PROJECT DESCRIPTION


The BSERP was split into two implementation
The Ecosystem Recovery Project builds upon a
phases - Phase I (Apr 2002 - Oct 2004) and
series of GEF IW projects for the Black Sea that
Phase II (Nov 2004 - June 2008), based on a
together represent one of the most extensive
reconsideration of priorities and a re-evaluation
and consistent interventions in the GEF IW
of the need for earlier delivery of certain project
portfolio.
outputs. These have provided essential inputs to

other activities within this integrated project.
Initial GEF efforts on Black Sea ecosystem

Project dates from 1993, and was originally
The US$10 million BSERP supported regional
given the acronym BSEP. The BSEP `label'
aspects of the Black Sea Partnership for
served an important function of making the
Nutrient Control and it assists and strengthens
various interventions coherent and
the role of the Black Sea Commission (of the
comprehensible to the public and to the
Bucharest Convention for the Protection of the
governments. It is also attracted donor interest
Black Sea against Pollution). The BSERP has
to the increasingly popular cause of `Saving the
ensured the provision of a suite of harmonised
Black Sea ', to which the BSEP label became
legal and policy instruments for tackling the
closely associated. Under BSEP a series of
problems of eutrophication and hazardous
background studies were completed, and a
substances in order to facilitate ecosystem
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis was
recovery. An important feature of the project has
finalised in June 1996. On the basis of this
been its encouragement of broad stakeholder
document senior government officials negotiated
participation.
the original Black Sea Strategic Action Plan,

signed on 31st of October 1996, during a
The BSREP has been part of a broader multi-
Ministerial Conference in Istanbul.
donor Black Sea Environmental Programme.

Mechanisms have been established to ensure
In the period 1997-1999, National Action Plans
donor co-ordination, as they were originally to
were developed and implemented with the help
assure co-ordination/co-operation and the
of funding from a regional GEF intervention.
sharing of objectives with the Danube and
GEF-PDF-B support also enabled completion of
Dnipro GEF Projects.
reviews of the current legal, policy and

institutional provisions for limiting nutrient
THE EXPERIENCE
discharges to the aquatic environment at the

national level in the year 2000.
Issue


This latest effort (BSERP), started in 2002 and
The original (1996) Black Sea TDA was one of
was linked under the Danube / Black Sea
the first ever produced and was a ground-
Strategic Partnership with the Danube Regional
breaking document. However, guidance has
Project (GEF-UNDP), and the Black Sea
changed since this document was originally
Nutrient Reduction Facility (World Bank). The
produced, so it didn't contain many of the items
Strategic Partnership has been a US$ 97 million
that a modern TDA should contain, e.g. a
support framework, providing investment and
stakeholders analysis, or a full causal chain
capacity building to 17 countries of the Danube /
analysis. It focused very heavily on direct point
Black Sea basin, to improve water quality and
source emissions to the Sea and, although
reduce nutrient loading.
presented well, it was clear that much of the
2

---

environmental data/information was wanting. It
and they were requested to produce thematic
was obvious that in updating it, a new approach
reports on the following issues:
and structure was required. Also, GEF

encourages periodic review of TDA and SAP as
1. Biodiversity/habitats/alien
species
a part of adaptive management and the BSERP
2.
Causal chain analysis
was one of the first GEF projects to revisit its
3. Fisheries
initial TDA. It has been 10 years since the first
4. Pollution
loads
TDA was completed and it needed to be
5. Pollution
status
updated.
6. Stakeholders
analysis

7. Socio-economic
assessment
Addressing the Issue
8. Governance
analysis


The first task was to hire a contractor to assist
The intent was for these reports to form the
and guide the Project Team through the TDA
technical basis of the TDA, an outline structure
process. None of the Project staff had previously
for which had previously been agreed, as had
been involved in TDA/SAP production. The next
formatting guidance for the production of maps,
task was to identify what the major
graphs and other figures. From the start, it was
transboundary problems were. The original
intended that Project staff would be responsible
(1996) Black Sea TDA dealt with 7 problems,
for writing sections on eutrophication and
but we were keen to focus on 4 or 5 at the most.
governance analysis, based on their particular
National experts from the 6 countries were
areas of expertise and regional knowledge.
therefore invited to a meeting, at which a
However, the late- or none-delivery of many of
brainstorming session produced an initial list of
the thematic reports required a change of plan
over 20. Following discussions this was reduced
(see Difficulties encountered below).
to 7, and these were then prioritised, producing

a list of 5. Two of these (changes in biodiversity /
RESULTS AND LEARNING
habitats and alien species introduction) were

later merged because of their close inter-
The 2007 Black Sea TDA is structured and looks
relationship, leaving 4 major transboundary
very different to the original document. This
problems to be dealt with:
presented considerable difficulties with some

individuals, who expected the two TDAs to be
Nutrient over-enrichment /
structured and look very similar ­ in effect, for
eutrophication
graphs to be updated to include data gathered
Changes in marine living resources
during the intervening years and the text to be
(fisheries)
adjusted to reflect the new information. Early on
Chemical pollution (including oil)
in the process, we sat through a series of
Habitats, biodiversity and alien species
discussions in which uses of the words "update"
introduction.
and "revision" were exhausted. So, while the

1996 TDA clearly laid the ground for the 2007
Based on personal knowledge and individuals'
analysis, in essence the 2007 version was
comments made at this meeting, 6 technical
written from scratch, with a more critical
task team (TTT) Leaders were selected, and
assessment of the quality of data used. To link
each of the 6 BS Commissioners was asked to
the two versions, blue-coloured summary boxes
provide the names of national representatives
were incorporated to demonstrate differences in
(i.e. TTT Members) to supply data/information
approach and progress made in tackling the
for each of the TTT Leaders to analyse. All TTT
problems.
Leaders and Members were contracted by the

Project. The TTT Leaders were then asked to
Linkages between national assessments and the
provide a series of spreadsheets and/or
TDA
questionnaires requesting specific data within

their area(s) of expertise. These were copied to
Early on in the TDA production process it was
the Project Team who amended the requests in
decided that data from the 6 BS countries
light of their own technical/regional knowledge
should to be analysed in the same way. Different
and the information requested by other TTT
methods of assessment usually produce
Leaders. The importance of collaboration
different results, so even if there were
between the various TTT Leaders was stressed
differences of opinion over the methods used,
3

---

individual countries would be less likely to object
by both Country Team Leaders (CTLs,
than if their data presented an overall
employed by The Project) and PIU Staff.
optimistic/pessimistic picture than other

countries. Thus, national assessments were
Time delays were encountered almost the whole
used only where regional data were not
way through data compilation and writing of the
available or to highlight specific points /
TDA. A considerable number of national
examples of good practice.
contractors failed to deliver everything they were

requested to, and only 2 of the 6 TTT Leaders
Common issues
were judged to have performed well. Thus, PIU

staff took on the responsibility of compiling /
The Black Sea TDA utilises GEF good practice
writing the majority of the document and
in terms of causal chains, governance, socio-
undertook much of the analysis. Two delays in
economic, stakeholders and hot-spots analysis,
deadlines for delivery of national data were
together with the identification and examination
requested by the Project Steering Committee,
of major transboundary problems, except for
but corrections to data originally supplied were
nutrient loading.
still being received 6 months after the twice-

postponed deadlines had passed.
Considerable effort was spent on including

background information to place the 4
The paucity of robust `local' socio-economic
transboundary problems in context.
information and the lack of `internal'

understanding of what a stakeholder analysis
The causal chain analysis undertaken did not
should contain meant that an international
provide a single, all-encompassing diagram
expert had to be contracted at a late stage to
illustrating how the various problems were inter-
undertake this work. Both aspects were
related. In retrospect, this would have been
completed on-time and to a high standard, but
useful. However, the causal chains analyses
the socio-economic analysis had to be based
proved to be particularly helpful in drafting the
primarily on national, rather than local (Black
SAP. Poorly regulated coastal development and
Sea catchment) data, using information from the
weak enforcement of existing legislation were
World Bank database.
notable contributory factors to most (or all) of the

4 major transboundary problems. Individual
Distinguishing between good and bad quality
transboundary problems were clear immediate
data has been a Black Sea problem for many
or underlying causes of other transboundary
years. Data may be compromised for a variety of
problems. Climate change and weak national
reasons. For example, historically poor
economies were considered root causes of all
analytical quality assurance procedures; use of
the major transboundary problems.
modelled instead of measured data (with its

associated uncertainties); inappropriate
Difficulties encountered
method(s) of collection; large inter-replicate

variability (for environmental biology and
The complexity of the contracting and reporting
chemistry data), a belief that emission loads
process took a long time to organise. In order to
calculated from monitoring data are accurate,
check on progress, and to allow payment as
when they only represent most-likely estimates;
individuals proceeded with their work, all
or incomplete datasets. For this reason, an
contractors were requested to produce multiple
assessment was made of the `trustworthiness' of
deliverables. In total some 50 ToRs/ contracts
all data/information collected, and only those
were produced and a total of more than 220
which were considered to represent the real
deliverables (data tables and reports) had to be
situation (or an approximation of it) were used.
checked for completeness. When deliverables

were incomplete, unclear (usually due to
Originally it was intended to include a full
language difficulties) or contained unexpected /
revision/update of the hot-spots analysis
unusual data, contractors were asked to review
undertaken in 1996. From this, 50 regional hot-
their data/information for accuracy, clarification
spots were identified, but criteria for
and/or data availability. This entailed the writing
inclusion/removal of hot-spots from the list had
of over one thousand e-mails. Progress on
not been adequately addressed. The `playing
delivery by national contractors was dealt with
field' was uneven in terms of location and
qualifying pollutant loads, with environmental
4

---

impacts assessed only on a national, rather a

transboundary basis. Agreement could not be
Although TDAs are technical documents, and
reached in time between different members of
therefore not supposed to be subject to
the Black Sea Commission Land Based Sources
negotiation, a final draft of the 2007 TDA was
Advisory Group, so the focus changed to an
provided to the Project Steering Committee, as
assessment of completion of the required capital
well as to heads of the Black Sea Commission
investments identified in 1996.
Advisory Groups and to CTLs to check for

factual errors. This allowed a final opportunity to
Despite targets being given for the size of all
provide missing data. and, assisted in improving
sections, the 2007 TDA is probably still too long.
acceptance of the TDA (including its
However, the final version is only about two-
conclusions/recommendations) - something
thirds the size of initial drafts. Editing is also a
required for drafting and negotiating an update
time-consuming process.
of the 1996 Black Sea SAP.


Facilitating factors (enabling the TDA process to
REPLICATION
proceed)


The TDA should be regarded as an
The TDA team faced and dealt with problems as
important deliverable of GEF funded
and when they arrived. Unambiguous and
projects, and this should be reflected in the
realistic deadlines for delivery were made to all
resources allocated to its production. The
involved. Consistent late and non-delivery of
subsequent SAP is based on the TDA and
reports/data were dealt with firmly but fairly;
presents reforms and investments to
personnel were replaced or responsibilities re-
address the key transboundary concerns.
distributed in the worst cases. Progress made
A robust TDA will usually take longer to write
and difficulties encountered were regularly
than originally anticipated. Start the
reported to the Steering Committee.
TDA/SAP formulation / writing process as

early as possible in a project.
As many regional personnel were involved in
A far greater input from Project Staff may be
drafting the TDA as possible, both to increase
required than originally anticipated ­ in
access to national data and to improve buy-in to
addition to the time spent by all of the
the process and the final document itself. The
contractors, the 2007 Black Sea TDA also
final list of contributing specialists amounted to
required the full-time input of two PIU staff
66 people, of whom all but 4 were nationals of
for a period of one year each, as well as two
one of the 6 Black Sea countries. National
months input from Black Sea Commission
representatives were selected by Black Sea
Permanent Secretariat personnel. Inevitably,
Commissioners (all members of the Steering
this meant that delivery of other Project
Committee), not project staff, so any lack of
Activities was delayed.
reporting could be blamed on the Project.
Place the transboundary problems dealt with
However, favours were asked and additional
in historical, socio-economic and political
national contractors hired to improve access to
context.
specific information when difficulties were
If contractors are performing poorly be fair,
encountered to ensure that required
but be prepared to reduce contractual
information/data could be obtained.
payments or replace individuals if they

unacceptably delay production of the TDA.
Although an initial vision of the 2007 TDA was
Always try to present a regional perspective,
developed, adjustments had to be made to
rather than a series of national views.
account for data/information availability. As
Whenever possible, analyse data from
progress began to be made, Steering
different countries in the same manner. The
Committee members and stakeholders
importance of standardised regional (as
suggested further items for inclusion, e.g. an
opposed to national) procedures for data
overview of landfill status. This required national
collection and assessment cannot be over-
representatives to provide more data than was
emphasised.
originally anticipated. The flexibility and
A TDA is not a regional `state of the
willingness/determination of individual
environment' report. Ensure that
contributors was therefore the major reason for
contractors/authors fully understand what is
its completion.
required of them and of the TDA produced.
5

---

Keep the analysis concise. Where
such documents to the information they
appropriate put lengthy tables into annexes.
need.
The final 2007 Black Sea TDA is probably
If possible, use an `external' editor ­
too long, even though it contains a wealth of
somebody who has not been involved in
information.
writing drafts of the document ­ or at least
Where supporting information/data are
make sure that every section is edited by
absent or weak, ensure that expert opinion
somebody not involved in its drafting.
is regionally accepted, or that differences in
Keep the Project Steering Committee fully
opinion are expressed.
informed and seek their help in solving
Look carefully at the Project Implementation
problems as they arise.
Plan to ensure that other project activities

can best be undertaken to provide useable
SIGNIFICANCE
input to the TDA, e.g. the compilation of

emissions inventories, governance analyses
While Black Sea teams developed the first ever
and agricultural assessments.
TDA in the GEF IW community, they were
The generation of socioeconomic data is
among the first to completely update and revise
both expensive and time-consuming, so
the analysis within the spirit of adaptive
needs to be planned as an early project
management. Thus, this experience offers
activity, allowing it to be used as an input to
pragmatic lessons to other projects seeking to
the TDA process.
update and revise TDA's, overcoming the
Be prepared for difficulties; they will occur.
inevitable difficulties of doing so, to reflect
Always be thinking of a `plan B' to obtain
changing environmental conditions.
requested data / information if you are

confident it exists.
REFERENCES
Set deadlines for which data are provided

(e.g. 2003-2008) and stick to them.
For more information on the BSERP and its
Otherwise there will be a temptation to keep
activities, please visit the website at
repeating/re-hashing `old' data, when the
www.bserp.org. For more information on the
idea is to present current or recent status.
TDA revision, please contact the BSERP Lead
From the start it is important to have a vision
Scientist, Bill Parr, at dr.bill.parr@btinternet.com.
of what a TDA should contain, its' likely

structure and the key messages it should
KEYWORDS
contain. However, be prepared to make

changes to this vision (as determined by
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
changing inputs and data availability).

TDAs should present available national data
The Global Environment Facility (GEF)
in an optimistic light, but where information
International Waters Experience Notes series
is weak or questionable, don't be afraid to
helps the transboundary water management
say so. Where information/data is clearly
(TWM) community share its practical
poor or untrustworthy, don't use/include it.
experiences to promote better TWM.
Standardised reporting formats are
Experiences include successful practices,
essential. Check and re-check the accuracy
approaches, strategies, lessons,
of data received. Take particular care over
methodologies, etc., that emerge in the
the use of units, commas and decimal points
context of TWM.
in data received.

Structure and formatting are very important.
To obtain current IW Experience Notes or to
Few people ever read a TDA from beginning
contribute your own, please visit
to end, so it is important that readers are
http://www.iwlearn.net/experience or email
able to quickly navigate their way through
info@iwlearn.net.

6

---